Articles Posted in Police

The family of a Florida man Marlon Brown has released video of his death, hoping to get criminal charges filed against the DeLand police officer who ran him over. Brown was being chased by police because they allegedly saw that he was not wearing a seatbelt. At a dead-end road, Brown stopped his car and started running. One of the police cars hit and ran him over, its dashcam video recording the entire incident.

A grand jury decided not to indict officer James Harris on a criminal charge of vehicular manslaughter. That’s when the family decided to go public, and release the video. The family stated they knew that the video is hard to watch, but they feel that in order to obtain justice, releasing the video was something that they had to do.

When charged with a crime, prosecutors often have a choice between seeking an indictment from a grand jury and filing a charging document directly with the court. The prosecutor will either:

– decide that the case should be charged (as a felony or a misdemeanor), and file a complaint with the trial court
– decide that the case should be charged as a felony and bring evidence before citizens serving as grand jurors, who will decide what charges, if any, to file, or
– decide that the matter should not be pursued (charges dismissed or diverted)
– Prosecutors can file charges on all crimes for which the police arrested a suspect, but have the option to also file charges that are more or less severe than the charges leveled by the police.

A charging document is usually called an information, accusation, or complaint, to distinguish it from a grand-jury indictment. To protect the accused’s due-process rights in felony cases, where the accused’s freedom is at stake, there is usually a preliminary hearing, at which time the judge presiding will determine whether there was sufficient probable cause to arrest the accused who is in custody.

The substance of an indictment or other charging instrument usually consists of a short and plain statement of where, when, and how the accused allegedly committed the offense. Each offense usually is set out in a separate count. If a felony is involved, prosecutors sometimes leave it to grand juries to decide whether charges should be filed.

The process of proceeding in the legal system becomes more complex when a grand jury is involved. Grand juries are similar to regular trial juries (called “petit juries”) in that they are made up of randomly selected individuals. The grand jurors listen to evidence and decide whether charges should be brought against the individual accused. Grand Juries present problems for the accused, because jurors are people with opinions, beliefs, and discriminatory practices that may or may not play a factor in whether the accused is charged, and what level of charge is brought.

Grand jury proceedings are secret, many times involving hearing witness testimony that will be used to charge the accused with a crime, without the suspect or the suspect’s lawyer present. To add to the trouble of secrecy, many times, direct action by many Prosecutors in attempting to keep mitigating evidence out of the view of the grand jury causes falsely accused parties to become victims of a State operated legal system.

When a prosecutor brings a case to a grand jury, the prosecutor presents the jurors with a “charging bill” and usually introduces the minimum amount of evidence necessary to secure an indictment. Prosecutors do not like to overwhelmingly meet their burden of proof in the grand jury proceeding, many times because of fear that the indicted suspect and his experienced attorney will later obtain a transcript of the grand jury proceedings, which can and will often be used to blast holes in the prosecution’s case.

An experienced attorney will bring all evidence to light, including deposing state witnesses and examining any and all evidence available. This examination many times reveal major problems in the State’s case that will allow one’s charge to be lessened or dismissed, problems that may be missed if one obtains a shoddy defense.

If one obtains an experienced Jacksonville criminal defense attorney, one’s attorney may be able to file a motion to suppress any illegally obtained evidence, argue any potential defenses to one’s charge, and possibly have either one’s charge dismissed, or have one’s punishment considerably lessened, possibly involving only probation or house arrest.

Continue reading

Two incidents involving Escambia County deputies are being investigated for what may be possible police misconduct, one involving an unnecessary shooting, and the other involving a warrantless entry into a home that ended in the needless shooting of both of the resident owner’s pet, one which died. The first incident involved County deputies who shot 15 rounds at Roy Howard Middleton, a 60-year-old unarmed Florida man who was looking for his cigarettes in his mother’s car, parked in his own driveway. Two of those bullets hit him, shattering his left leg. Middleton says he was compliant when the cops told him to turn around, and that as he was turning around to face deputies with his hands raised, they opened fire. The two deputies said they were responding to a 911 call about a car thief and that Middleton turned and “lunged” at them with a shiny object in his hand.

According to Florida’s courts, reasonable suspicion is present when a reasonable police officer under similar circumstances would believe criminal activity had just occurred, was occurring at that moment, or was about to occur. In other words, whether that specific officer’s belief was reasonable is reviewed by the courts using an objective standard (what a reasonable officer would have believed under similar circumstances).

In this case, the police could have reasonably believed Middleton was a possible suspect in a burglary. However, the police could also reasonably believe that Middleton was trying to get into a car that he had a right to be in. A few simple questions of the man and what his purpose was in accessing the car would have been simple enough. Middleton had his hands up. The gunfire was unnecessary. As Jacksonville criminal attorney blog has stated many times before, there are other alternatives to neutralizing a suspect other than shooting them.

Many times, the true reason that the suspect is suspected in the first place is unfortunately because of racial discrimination, profiling, or other discriminatory practices that would drive a police officer determine in his own mind that the person he is attempting to apprehend is in fact the perpetrator of a crime. In this case, Middleton is black. The two sheriff’s deputies are white. Although there are no specific facts to show that officers acted with racial prejudice, racial prejudice should not be ruled out.

Other times, officers write on their report any factors they think necessary to make the action committed by police justifiable as a result. In this case, the officer’s claim they were justified in shooting at Middleton because they claim he “lunged” at them with a shiny object, and thus their actions are legal under the eyes of the law. However, 15 shots for one man cannot possibly be justified. 15 shots between two officers means that both officers nearly emptied their ammunition clip in their weapon on this man, rather than simply asking him what he was doing. As for the shiny object in his hand, that could have been a house key or car key even. However, the officers never even asked Middleton what was in his hands. Irrational and unjustifiable actions like this by police may result in stroll through the neighborhood to a friend’s house into a night in a jail and an up-hill battle to clear one’s name.

The second incident involved Six Escambia County deputies who climbed through the window of a private residence without a warrant, dragging a sleeping couple out of their bed, shooting at their two dogs, one of which later died. The police were pursuing a suspect in an armed disturbance earlier in the evening on the couple’s street, found an upside-down bucket next to a window of their home, knocked on the door, and when nobody answered, they just entered through the window. Police claim that upon encountering the people in the house, the dogs became aggressive. One dog bit at one of the deputy’s leg, at which point he pushed the dog away; unfortunately, the dog came at him again, and the officer shot the dog in self-defense, at which time the second dog began to run towards him. For his personal safety, he shot the second dog. The couple, who are white, say they were asleep in bed. Then the cops threw them on the ground, handcuffed them and dragged them into the hallway, and then started shooting at the dogs. No arrests were made. That case is also being investigated.

Under the 4th amendment, if the police have exigent circumstances, or circumstances that would show that evidence of criminal activity could be removed or destroyed quickly, or the police are currently in “hot pursuit” of a suspect, the police may conduct a search without a warrant. However, one has a reasonable expectation of privacy from government intrusion in one’s home. This means that police may not enter one’s home without a warrant if they do not have probable cause.

In this case, earlier in the evening, the police were in pursuit of a suspect in an armed disturbance on the couple’s street. However, the trail went cold. Therefore, “hot pursuit” is no longer applicable, and therefore the exception to the warrant requirement does not apply.

Furthermore, probable cause, the now applicable standard, would not be found from an upside-down bucket next to a window of a home. Wind, squirrels, and dead tree branches can knock over a bucket. Furthermore, the police had not investigated the home before, so how can the police positively say that the bucket was not knocked over long before then?

The biggest misconduct violation of all was the police entering into a dwelling with no probable cause or warrantless entry exception. Just because someone does not answer the door, does not mean that a police officer can just enter through the window of the home. The officers probably felt they were in the right because they were looking for an armed suspect. The courts should not allow “hot pursuit”, the only possible justification in this case to suspend the warrant requirement, to be used as a justification for what police misconduct and serious violations of the Constitution. If county sheriff’s offices allow their deputies to participate in this kind of conduct, then every time an armed suspect in any general location is being pursued, whether by hot, warm or cold case pursuit, the police will feel justified under the law in invading one’s privacy, an act that is not justifiable under the U.S. Constitution.

Many times, the officer will claim one is being detained; remember, the detention could very well be illegal. However, resisting arrest can only make the situation worse for one who is already dealing with an officer who is not following the law correctly. One needs an experienced Jacksonville criminal defense attorney who has the knowledge to properly fight the charge and ensure one’s rights are protected.

Continue reading